I watched the Dem debate yesterday, and I have to say that I was impressed, but not will Hill, or Obama, or Edwards. It was the lesser known’s who stood out. Which left me wondering, why are they the lesser knowns? Why is it that I just read a Slate article (and I have a lot of respect for the Slate) on a debate that, from the article, I would never know had more than 3 people involved. I had only heard in passing about the Governor or Mexico being a candidate until I saw the debate and, having seen it; I am very confused as to why. I disagreed with half of what he said and I would still vote for him because he spoke with patience, experience and wisdom every time he opened his mouth. I was stunned by how much respect he earned from me every time he answered a question. He was funny, wise, and on top of the situation no matter what the situation was. And even though I felt he was the most prominent case of this, he was not the only case. Everyone who wasn't in the top 3 had their moments or real leadership and real wisdom (although for Spector it seems more rare than not). Again, these were people that I disagreed with on more than one point, but I still respected a lot of what they had to say; and almost more importantly, how they said it. These “no names” seemed like good candidates for leadership. They displayed foresight, experience and wisdom throughout the debate. In many cases, they seemed to be in a league above America’s favorite bickering trio.

We have come to a point in our political history where we care more about picking someone who has enough money and support to win, than we do about choosing a wise and honorable leader. Please tell me I didn't just type that without the use of a question mark! Because I feel shocked and unsettled by it. Do we ignore superior leaders because they couldn't sell as many cereal boxes? Have we come to a place where we refuse to even consider voting our conscience if it means we might be on the losing side? If that is that case, then what is the point? Tell me we are better than this.

I have a lot to say on what the top three displayed during the course of the debate. But I am going to keep it all to myself since none of it is as important as the fact that more than three people were there. And the three who will be the most commented on, deserved the comments the least. Talk to me people, what is going on here?

Den-

I agree with you. It happens on the republican debates as well. The press only seems interested in Rudy and Mitt and every now and again in McCain.....

I think Howard Dean and the Dem party should be raising cain over this bull shit. In 2004 you couldn't find anything in the press about Wesley Clark or anyone else other than Kerry, Dean and Edwards.....

I would at least demand equal time in the debates (if I had any power to do so).

Den, I couldn't agree more. The issue I see is one of courage, or the lack of it by Democratic party voters. For the last 2 presidential election cycles, the Democratic candidates have been playing defense, so maybe they have led the flock in towards this seemingly terminal timidity. Both Gore and Kerry were decidedly cautious characters, but it also reflects on us, the registered Dems, for selecting them in the primaries. Technically speaking, up until 2004-2006, nationwide polls showed that most people supported conservative/Repbulican policies and principals, so there was a statistical reason for Dem candidates to play it defensively. But there has been a recent shift to the left, which could be turned into a powerful tide if only a strong and courageous leader would emerge to give this movement impetus. I think that John Edwards is showing courage, if not necessarily a great deal of power and charisma in his personality. But the voters are still hesitant to chose him, seemingly because they're afraid he would lose in the general election. Now, we're the timid ones. I believe this election is on us. It is time for us to show some courage and conviction, and thereby feed the courage and conviction of our candidates.

I've taken part in a couple of caucuses in Colorado. It is difficult to want to spend the time, because other states have already decided who the candidate will be. In 2000 I went to the republican caucus and was supporting McCain (but he had already dropped out). In 2004 I went to the democrats caucus and wanted to support Clark, but he had already dropped out.

This year I will go to the caucus in an attempt to change the primary process. I would like to see regional primaries that are held fairly close together. I would also like to see the national party work to keep all candidates in the race until all regional primaries are finished. I think they owe it to us all to give us the best choices possible and the current campaign being decided by fewer than 100,000 voters in Iowa and New Hampshire is unacceptable.

Yes, yes and yes. When a candidate who is running behind financially suddendly starts getting finalcial support the media starts treating him as a "serious" candidate. In 2001 the prevailing question put to Gore and Bush was "who would you like most to have a beer with?". Kerry got this, too. Bush, of course, won hands down. Even though at the time he revealed a lack of intelligence, as well as lack of curiosity, no knowledge of foreign affairs, in oher words no better than the gentleman C student Americans seem to love so much. There is life after high school. Grow up America! How ironic that Bush wanted to be the education president.

I see this as a symptom of our collective diseased mindset based not upon the person but upon money, appearance and some kind of third person zeitgeist that we all seem to want to adhere to in a collective way despite none of us agreeing to it. I took an on-line poll and it said the candidate closest to me was Dodd, not Obama. I was for Obama until I found out that I was not really for Obama. Its the same thing with the GOP and Ron Paul. This is not about getting the right candidate, its about money, power and media hype. Why are we listening to morons like Hannity, Matthews, Orielly, Colmes, etc? What the fuck do they know that none of us knows? Who gives a shit what they think? Yet here they are, on the media constantly telling us what we think, hell, they don't even know me yet they claim to represent the "people". I personally do not want Hillary as President but it appears as if my choice is already made for me. Who are these sheep that vote for her just because someone on the TV told them she was the frontrunner or the one to beat?

The whole thing disgusts me.

I like your observations. There does appear to be an error wherein you talk about the "Governor or(sic) Mexico". I do hope you meant to say Governor of New Mexico. People from other parts of the US are not very familiar with the states in the Southwest & often refer to New Mexico as Mexico & do feel that it is a part of Mexico and not the US.

Anyway, I do agree with you that the Democratic party has excellent candidates & all have some great points & philosophies. It's a shame we can't have a candidate with all their strong points. Governor Richardson is actually the best candidate and the most experienced. He has implemented numerous innovative policies & laws in his state that have been very successful & are in line with what is facing our nation today. However, because he does not have the funds to compete on that level with some of the other candidates, he is not given the time nor respect he deserves.

I love Joe Biden. I love Chris Dodd. Dennis Kucinich fights the good fight and never abandons his principles no matter what. Bill Richardson -- what an amazing resume! Barack Obama ... wow, I haven't felt this inspired since Kennedy. I could listen to his speeches for four years, or eight years, oh yeah. Hillary Clinton ... such brains! Such star power! Such authority! And John Edwards, who has the best domestic policy ideas since F.D.R. and the passion and energy to carry them out.

I'm having a perfectly terrible time choosing. I wish I could vote for them all. I cannot remember being in this position ever before in my life.

My husband is voting for Biden -- if he makes it to the California primary. The good candidates rarely do. But then, our primary was always late before. Maybe we'll get a chance to actually vote our hearts this time.

We both voted for Edwards in 2004, but this time I'm torn ... I will probably still vote for Edwards, but Chris Dodd is catching my eye too.

Decisions, decisions!!

What a perfectly lovely problem to have.

If I had my choice I'd get Biden and Dodd to work together. What a team that would be.

Den,

I agree with you.

The over-coverage of the big Democratic three is not only unfair, but I think it hurts the Democrats.

I am a life long Republican disgusted with my party. I would like to vote Democratic this time around. But I can't vote for Edwards, Obama or Hillary (if Hillary is the nominee I am writing a check to her Republican opponent, whoever he is). I would, however, love to vote for Richardson or Biden, and I like these two the reasons you say: because they are smart and experienced and not necessarily because I agree with them on everything.

Anyway, good commentary.

FD

Seriously. I'm not being snarky, here, so please don't misinterpret my question. I would love to know exactly why so many Republicans loathe Hillary Clinton. Can you shed any light? She's not particularly liberal, she's more hawkish than dovish, she's been a solid, churchgoing Christian all her life (even taught Sunday School before she was famous), has no marital scandals of her own making ... no divorce, no adultery, no drinkin' and carousin'. Nothing that would explain (as far as I can see) the ferocity of the sentiment against her.

Is it because she's female?? In this day and age, I have hard time understanding that. But lately I've heard a lot of "accusations" that she has had a "20-year plan" for becoming President. As if -- even if it were true -- there was something despicable about it. As if the other candidates have NOT had a 20-year (or longer) plan for becoming President.

What gives??

Dgol,

With Hillary it is all about her character and personality.

Bill and Hillary will do and say about anything to get elected. Their only conviction seems to be that they should be President. I have little idea where Hillary is on the political spectrum, because she chooses positions to advance her political career. She put up with Bill's cheating all these years because she wanted power for herself. One of their Hollywood friends pointed out that it is frightening how easily the Clinton's lie. They represent the worst in politics. They are known to threaten those who oppose them, and they are thoroughly corrupt. Remember Bill Clinton pardoned over 130 people on his way out the door. The Whitewater thing still stinks in my opinion. The Clintons are crooked unprincipled people who only want power. What is Bill Clinton's legacy? Nothing happened during his presidency except a conservative welfare reform law. The Clintons believe in nothing except that they want power.

But at least Bill is charming. Hillary is Condescending and Humorless, and, to be fair, I guess there is something about these qualities in a woman that men hate. I have to say that I can't watch her without cringing. Would a man with the same qualities bother me as much? It's a good question. I do know that I would love to see a woman President. The two Senators from Maine, Snow and Collins, might make good Presidential timber. They are both moderate Republicans.

Let's put it this way, why would anyone vote for someone with few if any real principles when you can have someone with real passion like Biden or steady experience like Richardson? That's what I don't get. Or maybe I do. I think I am not the sexist. I think maybe most of those women voting for Clinton are.

FD

I think you may have something, there. There are definitely men out there in voterland -- my husband among them -- who, no matter what "reasons" they give for disliking her, dislike her because she's a woman. And there are women out there who are determined to vote for her because she's a woman. Both views are equally cringeworthy, IMHO.

As for the rest of it ... LOL ...don't get me started on the myriad accomplishments of the Bill Clinton administration! Everything from more cops on the street to a balanced budget ... not to mention eight years of peace and prosperity (which included foiling the Millenium Plot because, unlike the current administration, the Clinton administration was AWAKE at the wheel). But none of that pertains to this question, except, perhaps, tangentially. Like: is a poll-driven presidency so terrible? Maybe being poll-driven means you are alert and responsive to what America wants and needs. (Hmmm. Maybe that's stretching a point.)

Hey! We ought to move this discussion to the main page! Is there a way to do that?

Not to belabor the point, but what has being affable and the guy you'd most like to have a beer with gotten us for the past 7+ years? You wonder about Hillary's principles, but do you approve of the blatant lack of them in our current administration? If a woman decides that she will stay with a man regardless of his cheating, how does that reflect badly on her? If a woman is ambitious, how does that become a crime. You ascribe venal motives to the Clintons, but do you acknowledge any sinister goals in Bush's administration.

And just for the record, a close collegue of mine worked on a panel of health care experts that advised Hillary during her formulation of the 93 plan, and met with her numerous times. His impressions, which I trust more than the media ones, are that she is a very committed, very caring and very near brilliant woman. He says that out of the public eye, she is witty and has a personable way about her. She never forgets a person's face nor the birthdays of people she works with.

So, yes, I do think it is you that is the sexist and for irrational reasons that would never be taken into consideration if applies to a man.

And please, put Whitewater--and whatever else you think the Clintons are guilty of--to rest. It stinks no more than W's sweetheart deals with the sale of his oil venture and the Rangers fiasco.

I seem to recall that when Elizabeth Dole briefly ran for President (remember that?), people who knew both women used to comment that she and Hillary Clinton were polar opposites, at least in this way: Dole appeared sweet and caring, the true Southern Lady, but underneath the facade she was an iron fist in a velvet glove -- which was why she had a hard time keeping staff. Clinton, on the other hand, was described as the velvet fist in the iron glove -- an off-putting public persona that hid a heart of gold. Which is why her staff is fiercely loyal. So your colleague's comments come as no surprise to me.

This attribute of hers is what gives me hope. I am not voting for her in the primary. But if she wins the nomination, I hope that the inner "heart of gold" Hillary shows up for the general election. I'm told that once people meet her, or see her in person, their hostility melts away. That certainly seemed to be the case in the Senate, where she was able to surprise a lot of Republicans with her collegiality.

The neocons may have overplayed their hand, demonizing her. If a lot of people expect her to wear horns and carry a pitchfork, all she has to do is walk into the room without those attributes and suddenly people start to think, "Hey. I've misjudged her!"

I hope so, anyway.